Look, we need to have a serious talk about the Anne of Green Gables 2016 movie. If you grew up in the 80s or 90s, Megan Follows is Anne Shirley. Period. End of story. So, when YTV and PBS announced they were rebooting the beloved Lucy Maud Montgomery classic with Martin Sheen as Matthew Cuthbert, the collective "bosom friends" of the internet held their breath. Some people loved it. Others? Well, they were less than thrilled.
It's a weird piece of media.
Technically titled L.M. Montgomery's Anne of Green Gables, this TV movie was directed by John Kent Harrison. He’s the guy who did The Courageous Heart of Irena Sendler, so he knows his way around a period piece. But taking on Anne is a different beast entirely. You aren't just making a movie; you're competing with a ghost. Ella Ballentine, who was about 14 at the time, stepped into the oversized shoes of the red-headed orphan. Honestly, her performance is the anchor, even when the script starts to feel a bit... Hallmark-y.
The Matthew Cuthbert Factor
One of the biggest talking points about the Anne of Green Gables 2016 movie is Martin Sheen. It’s Martin Sheen! President Bartlet is living in Avonlea! When you think of Matthew Cuthbert, you usually think of a man who is painfully shy, almost a shadow in his own home until Anne arrives. Sheen brings a different energy. It’s softer, maybe a bit more present than the book version of the character.
Some purists hated this. They felt he was too "Hollywood" for the quiet, stuttering Matthew we see in the 1985 miniseries or the original text. But if you look at it objectively, Sheen captures the heart of the relationship. The scene where he buys her the dress with the puffed sleeves? It still hits. It’s that quiet validation that Anne never received in the asylum or the foster homes.
Sara Botsford plays Marilla, and she’s got that "rigid spine" thing down pat. She’s stern. She’s cold. But you see the cracks in the armor much earlier than you might expect. The 2016 version moves fast. It has to. It’s only about 90 minutes long, whereas the classic 1985 version had four hours to breathe. Because of that, the pacing feels a little rushed. One minute she’s arriving at Bright River station, the next she’s accidentally getting Diana Barry drunk on "raspberry cordial" (which we all know was actually currant wine).
📖 Related: Why Grand Funk’s Bad Time is Secretly the Best Pop Song of the 1970s
Why the 2016 Version Feels Different
Let’s be real. This isn't Anne with an E. It doesn't have that gritty, "everything is trauma" vibe that the Netflix/CBC show leaned into later. It’s much more of a traditional, cozy Sunday night movie. But it also lacks the sweeping, cinematic grandness of the Kevin Sullivan era.
It sits in this middle ground.
The cinematography is bright. It’s very... saturated. Prince Edward Island—or the Ontario locations standing in for it—looks like a postcard. Sometimes it looks a little too clean. The 2016 film doesn't really lean into the mud or the poverty of the era. It’s a sanitized version of the 1870s.
What People Get Wrong About This Adaptation
People often conflate this movie with the two sequels that followed it: The Good Stars and Fire & Dew. If you only watched the first one, you missed the full arc. The first movie basically covers the arrival and the initial "scrapes."
- The slate-breaking scene? It’s there.
- The hair-dyeing disaster? Yep.
- The "I hate Gilbert Blythe" energy? Fully present.
But it’s condensed. If you're looking for the deep philosophical musings of Anne Shirley, you might find this version a bit shallow. It hits the "greatest hits" of the book without diving into the weird, darker corners of Anne’s imagination.
👉 See also: Why La Mera Mera Radio is Actually Dominating Local Airwaves Right Now
The Casting Choice of Ella Ballentine
Ella Ballentine was a controversial choice for some. She doesn't look like the traditional "starved" Anne. She has a rounder face and a very expressive, modern look. But she handles the dialogue well. If you’ve ever tried to read Montgomery’s dialogue out loud, it’s hard. It’s flowery. It’s dramatic. "The iron has entered my soul!" is a tough line for any teenager to deliver without sounding ridiculous. Ballentine makes it work because she plays it with a certain earnestness.
She doesn't try to be Megan Follows. That’s the smartest thing she could have done.
Is It Worth a Rewatch?
Honestly, it depends on what you want. If you want a quick hit of nostalgia that you can watch with your kids, the Anne of Green Gables 2016 movie is perfect. It’s safe. It’s sweet. It’s incredibly faithful to the spirit of the book, even if it trims the fat.
However, if you are looking for a definitive adaptation, this isn't it. It feels like a "Lite" version of the story. It’s the "CliffNotes" version with high production values.
Real Talk: The Wardrobe and Set Design
The costumes are actually quite good. They nailed the "puffed sleeves" moment, which is the most important fashion event in Canadian literary history. The house itself, Green Gables, looks exactly how you’d imagine it—green shutters, white siding, and a sense of permanence. The production design team clearly did their homework. They didn't try to reinvent the wheel.
✨ Don't miss: Why Love Island Season 7 Episode 23 Still Feels Like a Fever Dream
The Legacy of the 2016 Reboot
Since 2016, we’ve seen a massive surge in "Anne-iana." We had the Netflix series, several new editions of the books, and even a graphic novel. This movie was sort of the catalyst for that 2010s resurgence. It proved that there was still an audience for "wholesome" content in an era of "prestige TV" where everything was dark and gritty.
It’s worth noting that Kate Macdonald Butler, L.M. Montgomery’s granddaughter, was an executive producer on this. That gives it a certain "seal of approval" that other adaptations lack. It wasn't just a studio grabbing a public domain property; it was a family-sanctioned project.
How to Watch and What to Look For
If you’re going to sit down and watch the Anne of Green Gables 2016 movie, don’t compare it to the 80s. Just don’t. You’ll ruin it for yourself. Look at it as a standalone piece of work.
- Watch the sequels. The story feels incomplete without The Good Stars and Fire & Dew. They allow the characters to grow up, and the stakes get a bit higher.
- Pay attention to the background characters. The depiction of the Avonlea community is actually quite charming and feels more populated than earlier versions.
- Listen to the score. It’s subtle, but it captures that "maritime" feel without being overbearing.
The 2016 film is a cozy blanket. It’s not a masterpiece, but it’s not trying to be. It’s a tribute to a character who has been a "kindred spirit" to millions for over a century.
To get the most out of the experience, try watching it back-to-back with the 1934 black-and-white version. You'll see how the portrayal of Anne has evolved from a vaudeville-style character to a more nuanced, modern girl. Also, check out the behind-the-scenes interviews with Martin Sheen; he’s genuinely delightful talking about why he wanted to play Matthew, citing his own love for the quiet strength the character represents. Finally, if you're a true fan, compare the "raspberry cordial" scene in this version to the original text in Chapter 16 of the book. You'll notice some small but interesting choices in how the 2016 script handles the fallout of the incident.
Next Steps for Anne Fans
- Check Availability: Look for the "L.M. Montgomery’s Anne of Green Gables" trilogy on Amazon Prime or PBS Passport, as it’s often bundled together.
- Compare the Texts: Read the original 1908 novel alongside the movie to see which specific "scrapes" the 2016 version chose to omit.
- Explore the Sequel: If you liked Ella Ballentine's performance, move directly to The Good Stars to see her version of Anne deal with the complexities of adolescence and Gilbert Blythe.